Delhi High Court
Ram Chandra Mission vs The Director General, Cpwd And ... on 17 February, 2005
Author: S R Bhat
Bench: S R Bhat
JUDGMENT
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.
1. Issue Rule. With consent of parties, taken up for final hearing.
2. This petition seeks an appropriate order restraining the respondent from taking action which would allegedly restrict the parking space near the petitioner's institution. The parking area is admittedly in front of the petitioner's institution and owner by the respondent Land and Development Office ('L and DO').
3. The petitioner was allotted land, namely, Plot No.2 on 15th February 1985. An agreement was drawn up between the petitioner and the Union of India demising an area of 920 Sq. Yards. The agreement annexed a site map, which inter alia indicated an existing road as also a proposed parking area.
4. The petitioner built upon the demised property and has been using it for the purpose, namely, meetings and congregations of its members/devotees. It is alleged that the space earmarked in the plan was being used for parking of vehicles, of the devotee of the Petitioner institutions and its members, who visit it.
5. It is averred that sometime in 2002, a part of road in front of the petitioner's plot was built upon; a boundary wall was constructed in front of the plot for the purposes of security of residents of R.K. Puram, Sector-4. The petitioner alleges that this boundary wall has the effect of reducing the space in such a manner that the width of the parking area would be only six feet and effectively lead to traffic congestion since the public road would be reduced to 18 feet.
6. After notice was issued, affidavits were filed by the first respondent-CPWD as also L and DO, Ministry of Urban Development. The affidavit of LandDO was filed after the same was required, by orders of Court.
7. The stand of CPWD is that since there was no clause in Memorandum of Agreement between the petitioner and the LandDO entitling it to parking space, there was no obligation to provide such an area. The LandDO, on the other hand, in its affidavit, has place on record the minutes of a meeting held on 10th October 2002. This meeting was attended by representatives of CPWD as also those of the petitioner and the Residents Welfare Association of R.K Puram, Sector-4, (in whose interest, the boundary wall has been put up). The said minutes record as follows :-
''The meeting was held regarding allotment of parking space for Ram Chandra Mission Jan Sankalp and other institutional plots in Sector-4, R.K. Puram on 10.10.02. During the meeting it was decided to earmark an area of 12m x 40m for parking of vehicles for the above institutional plots. The decision was agreed upon by all the persons / officers who attended the meeting as mentioned above.
A sketch showing the allotment of parking space as above is enclosed herewith for reference and information to all concerned.''
8. A sketch was annexed along with the said minutes. The minutes as also the sketch have been produced by the LandDO along with its affidavit. The sketch shows an area marked in red as proposed parking.
9. Mr. Harish Chandra, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents does not dispute the minutes; he says that the same would be given effect to. However, he submits that a final plan approved by the Chief Architect subsequently sometime in the year 2003, is not available in the official file.
10. Counsel for the petitioner points out that the affidavit of the LandDO was filed on 20th November 2004 That proceeds on the footing that an area of 12 m x 40 m would be earmarked for parking of vehicles for the institutional plots. The plan, if any, existed on the date when the affidavit was filed; it was also taken into consideration.
11. It may be noticed that the counter affidavit of the LandDO, dated 20th November 2004 confirms the minutes of meeting held on 10th October 2002 by which the decision to earmark a strip of 12m x 40m for all parking of vehicles for institutional plots was taken. The affidavit also states that the Chief Architect of CPWD clarified that the correct parking area/strip as per approved lay out plan of the area was marked in red. That approved parking area as per the lay out plan has been placed on record as Annexure 'C'. The affidavit, however, states that the agreement and lease deed of the petitioner do not mention about ownership of parking area in question being with the institution and that the proposed parking strip/area in question is outside the plot boundary of institutional plots. In this view, the LandDO's position is that the parking area, which forms part of road widening, cannot be considered for parking use for a particular institution.
12. The above narration clearly shows that the respondents came to a conclusion, by meeting dated 10th October 2002 that an area/strip of land in front (or rather opposite the petitioner's plot) and other plots, measuring 12 m x 40 m, ought to be kept apart for parking. There can be no apprehension about the ownership of this land; admittedly the petitioner is not claiming it. Equally, it does not form part of the petitioner's land, or falls to its exclusive use. The parking space sought for is not in respect of any one institution. It exists in front of all the institution plots. The affidavit of LandDO itself acknowledges that the Chief Architect of CPWD had clarified that the correct parking strip as per approved lay out plan of the area had been marked in the map annexed to the minutes of meeting. Hence, the doubts in regard to either the ownership or right to use that strip, are unfounded. As far as the layout is concerned, para 5 of the LandDO's affidavit reveals that the Chief Architect approved that as per layout, the use for the strip is parking.
13. In view of the above and having regard to the minutes of meeting of 10th October 2002 which have not been resoled or superseded, the appropriate course, to my mind, would be to require the respondents to take necessary steps and earmark the 12m x 40m trip agreed upon by the said minutes of meeting. It is expressly made clear that the said strip of land would not exclusively belong to any one institution.
14. In view of the above, I direct respondents to ensure that the said area of 12m x 40m, as per the minutes of meeting held on 10th October 2002 is earmarked and kept vacant for the purpose of parking in front of the petitioner's plot and the adjoining plots. The boundary wall, for securing Sector-IV, R.K. Puram, shall consequently be shifted to that extent. These directions shall be given effect to as expeditiously as possible and, in any case, not later than three months from today.
15. The writ petition is disposed off in the light of the above directions with no order as to costs.
